WE'VE MOVED!!

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Further Reading: The Worst of the Men's Rights Movement

From Paul Elam's site.

Here are links to, and brief excerpts of, some of the worst posts by Men's Rights activists and/or antifeminists I've run across in doing this blog. These are not random comments by random MRAs; they are all by people who have a history in the MRM. In most cases, they are fairly prominent names, at least within the online MRA community. A few of these posts will be familiar to readers of this blog.

Lest anyone accuse me of taking quotes out of context, I urge you to read the originals. As you'll see, none of these quotes are any more justifiable "in context" than they are here on their own.

If anyone out there has seen worse, please post a URL below. Conversely, if any of these posts have been publicly challenged by others in the MRM, I will happily post links alongside the original.

I am also taking nominations for a follow-up post, The Best of the MRM. Post URLs below.

In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.

I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess.

Immediately after this quote, he claims he's not "serious" about this, though apparently only because "it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers." My post on the subject is here. Here's another piece by Elam full of fantasies of violence against women.

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

This post from Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer and Men's Rights activist best known for suing clubs that have "ladies nights," suggests that men may have to take up arms to win their, er, struggle:

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely. But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms.

And speaking of angry men and their guns, here's a post from Citizen Renegade, a Pick-Up Artist (PUA) site popular with MRAs: Game Can Save Lives It's about George Sodini, the misogynist killer who gunned down women at a health club a year ago. "Chateau" suggests that all would have been well if Sodini had learned how to be a Pick-Up Artist:

If Sodini had learned game he would have been able to find another woman and gotten laid after his ex dumped him. He wouldn’t have spent the next 20 years steeped in bile and weighed down by his Sisyphian blue balls, dreaming of vengeance. Game could have saved the lives of the women Sodini killed.

Actually, Sodini had taken at least one class from Don Steele, author of "How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35." The comments to Chateau's article are scarier than the article itself. For selected examples and commentary, see here.

[P]roperly owning a dog is excellent training for properly owning a woman. The behavior of dogs and women is eerily similar, and their relation to man testifies to that.

Like dogs, women need to be led. They *want* to be led. In fact, though they will never admit it, women want to be owned by their men.

Other MRAs don't seem to be much interested in adult women at all. MRA Jay Hammers, a regular contributor to The Spearhead, has taken down his blog, but its worst moments live on in Google's cache. Perhaps the worst of the worst: Age of Consent is Misandry. Key quotes:

Age of consent laws are designed to punish beta males. A beta male in his 20s, unsuccessful with women his own age who are infused with a sense of feminist entitlement and deride all but the top alpha males who take interest in them, who seeks companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality.

Females generally do not significantly mature mentally past puberty so it should always be illegal for any woman to have sex or it should never be illegal for any woman to have sex. There is no arbitrary age where females suddenly become self-aware, realizing the consequences of their actions, and stop seeking out alpha males. Thus there must not be an arbitrary age of consent for sex.

One of Hammers' biggest defenders has been an antifeminist blogger by the nom-de-net of Schopenbecq, who is equally obsessed with the age of consent and what he sees as the superior attractiveness of teen girls. Here's one of his posts on the subject, which argues:

The age of consent has always been central to feminism. In fact, it has been its primary driving force right from the beginning. The purpose of this website is not to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent from the present feminist age of 16. For one thing, there is little or no chance of that happening in this author’s lifetime. However, I have no shame whatsoever in stating my clear belief that the age of consent ought to be what it still technically is in the majority of major civilised nations – namely, 14.

In this post, he mocks any man who doesn't think Heather Locklear's 13-year-old daughter is hotter than Locklear herself:

Results of a poll on Schopenbecq's site.

Here, he argues that feminism is a "Sexual Trade Union," and seems to suggest that increasing the age of consent from 12 was bad thing :

Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.

And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.

Post-feminist women have been so indoctrinated by specious polemics extolling their (largely imaginary) talents, that they truly believe their ‘achievements’ are somehow self-determined. This is why the loss of their physical charms wreaks such havok on them. Having been nurtured on feminist pipe dreams, the cutting realization that their youthful ‘success’ was entirely due to sexual allure must be galling indeed. ... Indeed, the staunch bitterness of middle-aged Anglo-American women can be entirely attributed to this realization:

It wasn’t your 'talent' and 'intelligence' that men admired: it was your sweet young pussy. That pussy-pass departed with your first wrinkle: live with it, bitch.

Big cities like London, New York and Sydney are jam-packed with beautiful foreign girls from Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. They are sexy, fun, good company and they treat men like human beings. They have not had their minds poisoned by feminist hate-speech. ... I urge all Western men to boycott Western Women if they can. Don't date them, don't marry them, don't have children with them. Find yourself a nice foreign girl, and find out what women should be like. If anyone asks you why, tell them it is a protest against feminist ideology. Once enough men start boycotting them, women will turn away from feminism.

Henry Makow has gotten too loopy for most Men's Rights activists to consider him as one of their own. But he remains one of the internet's most influential antifeminists. Here are some quotes from his classic in craziness How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women.

Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society. ... Nicholas Rockefeller told [producer Aaron Russo] that his family foundation created women's liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. ....

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.

While women and children often lack the capacity to grasp the inner workings of authority, they still have an instinctual, positive response to it. Authority brings chaotic, aimless things, people, events and circumstances into a state of good order. ... Masculinity is properly expressed in the form of authority.

You know what I said above about reading the originals? Don't bother in this case.

Single mothers, rampant divorce, abortion and falling birth rates are part of the cancer that is destroying what is left of Western Civilization. But very few people (even conservatives) fail to realize that the inception of this cancer can be found in the passage of the 19th amendment.

More Worst Of links to come! The Men's Rights movement produces fresh awfulness each and every day.

EDIT: Deansdale's Blog has weighed in on this Worst-of list and is surprisingly positive about the whole thing. Oh, not my post -- he hates my post, and me -- but the original MRA-n-pals posts. Elam's "Bash a Violent Bitch" post? "What’s the problem with this article? Nothing, really. ... Elam has some insightful observations about the nature of women in our contemporary cultures." Roissy's post about misogynist killer George Sodini? "What’s wrong with this article? Nothing."And RamZpaul's How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization? "There are valid arguments supporting his claim. It’s not PC, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong."

He even sort-of defends good old Henry Makow and his bizarre conspiracy theoryies:

Actually this is not so crazy. You don’t believe it, that’s fine, but show me why this is soooo unacceptable. He states lots of things: some of them obvious, some of them researchable. But it’s not so radical.

The only people he doesn't defend? The Manhood Academy guys. Apparently saying horrible, horrible shit about women is perfectly acceptable in Deansdale's vision of the MRM, but saying horrible, horrible shit about women while also calling other MRAs "manginas," as the Manhood Academy guys do, is totally BEYOND THE PALE!!!

41 comments:

Pure hypocrisy here, as the rhetoric feminism generates is far more serious, and Christine, thats projection on your part, as feminism is the main protector of abusers in society, with more abusers under its wing then the catholic church.

Note how David is misrepresenting again here, the context of Elams piece, a satirical reversal of a feminist publications celebration of domestic violence is deliberately left out.

Is Elam joking when he says "Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true"? No, right?

Here's my "representation" of his meaning: "If it was up to me [Elam], rapists would never be penalized". I could be over-generalizing there, and he could be making a narrower point, which I would represent as "rapists, if they face criminal penalties, should always be acquitted", which isn't much different. Or he could be making an even narrower point, which I would represent as "rapists should face penalties, but our current system is unfair, so until it is reformed, we should acquit rapists."

I think those "representations" cover his meaning. So here's my question for you or any other MRA. Which of these--the original quote, and my "representations", do you agree with and which do you disagree with? And, is there some other "representation" I should be making instead?

I'm interested in what happens after we agree on what one of these quotes mean. If we spend all our time complaining that we're looking at the wrong quotes, or that the quotes are being misinterpreted, then we're not having the substantive debate yet. It's worth agreeing on the interpretation, but if it's all we do, and while we're doing it we just throw feminist or MRM platitudes into the conversation without supporting them, then we're avoiding debating the issues we ostensibly care about.

Considering those many disgusting comments from MRA's in the blog Alas, A Blog referencing support for George Sodini in David's earlier critique, it appears these men believe they should just be able to take what they want from women without consequence.

Joe, where as I dont necessarily support any of those opinion pieces, they are no different from and reactionary to feminist rhetoric. I feel its a mistake to respond to feminist hatred in kind and that there are smarter ways to go around it.

I haven't read any of those articles in full, I suspect Elams is about taking a stand against reductions of civil rights by feminist jurisprudence, protection of false accusers and the contempt for the falsely accused, is Paul showing equal and opposite contempt? Members of the mens movement generally believe that rape victims and the falsely accused of rape should have equal rights and also believe that male victims of rape and male and female victims of female pedophiles should have equal rights and access to support and awareness too, its a morally superior but a politically incorrect position and a position that mainstream feminism's monopoly opposes.

Elam's hard line on legal discrimination is seen as heresy while this, "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." from Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students, which means a man that hasnt raped a woman can benefit from an experience that can destroy his life, lead to suicide, prison and rape and torture is politically correct and something that a professional feminist in an influential position is free to say while a counter position by a member of the group being victimized as seen as incorrect. Jews fond themselves in a similar position in Nazi Germany, thats not a baseless comparison, because we are talking about a progressive Utopian social movement that depicts one group as being responsible for all that is wrong to further is agenda.

There is too much there to respond to all.

Cristine, the Atlas blog is as bad as any mra commentary. You are a sexist and hold people to different standards depending on which groups they belong to.

Cristine, I see you have not responded to the link I posted to you about the feminist misrepresentation of pedophilia or the feminist suppression of victims of female pedophiles or protection of the same....

As a mainstream feminist, I think people (regardless of sex/gender) deserve to be protected from rape, and if raped deserve to face their attacker in court, who should receive a fair trial where he/she is considered innocent until proven guilty, and if proven guilty should face some appropriate penalty (similar to the penalties faced by people who commit other violent crimes).

Do you agree with that? I do. Do you think Elam does? I don't.

These rhetorical platitudes are irrelevant:- Feminism is worse- Feminism is "hatred" - Feminists are Nazis

wrt to the Robin Morgan and Catherine Comin quotes; I don't think they need further explanation or context for me to take a position on them. They're vile, repugnant, and wrong, and I completely disagree with them. I also think Elam's quote is vile, repugnant, and wrong, and I completely disagree with it.

Apparently unlike Elam, Morgan, and Comin, I do not believe that injustice can be remedied with further injustice. You do not arrive at equal rights by oppressing one group after another.

If a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, the man accused should get to rape her free of charge. That sounds like a fair solution to me, and it will prevent women from taking advantage of feminism's unconstitutional stranglehold of our legal system.

"As a mainstream feminist, I think people (regardless of sex/gender) deserve to be protected from rape, and if raped deserve to face their attacker in court, who should receive a fair trial where he/she is considered innocent until proven guilty, and if proven guilty should face some appropriate penalty (similar to the penalties faced by people who commit other violent crimes)".

This is an antifemininist, mra and real feminist position, it runs contrary to feminist jurisprudence which seeks to invert innocent until proven guilty, you should ask Paul what he believes, Im guessing from his piece that he believes strongly in legal equality, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, other wise he wouldn't have been prompted to write in about these things.

Its noted that you chose not to support victims of female pedophiles.

Feminism does produce hate of hitlerian proportions.Feminism is fueled on prejudice and the conning of the masses into believing that there is a bad group and a good group through the use of propaganda.Of course feminists aren't nazis, they are feminists. Both movements are on the progressive family tree and similarly seek to oppress the group that they label politically incorrect.

"Apparently unlike Elam, Morgan, and Comin, I do not believe that injustice can be remedied with further injustice. You do not arrive at equal rights by oppressing one group after another".

Again, I cant really speak for Elam, as far as I know hes doesn't promote oppression, from what I can see he writes in opposition to it. You may not believe that equal rights can be achieves by one group oppressing an other, but you self identify as a moder feminist, so I think you are holding two conflicting beliefs at once.

The only people I see who support any sort of pedophilia are the MRA's referenced in David's article who are whining over the age of consent laws.

Just because people don't want to engage in useless circular arguments with you on topics you throw out there simply to deflect attention away from the topic at hand, doesn't mean they support what you accuse them of. It may mean they're ignoring you.

There are some MRAs who don't agree that women can be pedophiles, and believe that charging, convicting and sentencing a woman for sexual abuse is part of a feminist plot to destroy male sexuality.So feminism is to blame for women NOT being considered as being capable of pedophilia/sexual abuse and feminism is to blame when women ARE considered as being capable of pedophilia/sexual abuse.

So much crap, so little time... I will say this, given the evo psych drivel these MRAs are prone to: they should figure out that beta males in nature are the ones who are simply not supposed to get the females, and not supposed to reproduce at all. Those "blue balls" are all part of the plan.

@Eoghan, stop just throwing out random nazi comparisons (which always show a deep, deep failure to comprehend history and politics as well) and actually try giving an argument. You are fast becoming the king of Godwin's law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Cristine, you lie, you have seen the film in which a leading charity owner talks about the suppression for female pedophiles, you lying about is, guess what?

Yep, supporting female pedophiles and oppressing their victims, thats how modern feminists tend to be across the board. Feminisms best known play, contained pro female pedophilia themes and greers book "about a boy" is a celebration of pedophilia.

Glass houses and all that Christine.

Here is a mens rights site that Man Boobz, likely knows about but wont be showing you. http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/you-can-help-stop-the-abuse/

"There are some MRAs who don't agree that women can be pedophiles, and believe that charging, convicting and sentencing a woman for sexual abuse is part of a feminist plot to destroy male sexuality".

Where is that Christine? I notice you have a habit of saying things and not backing them up, its unlikely that a movement that seeks equal rights and opposes feminist good gender/bad gender stereotyping supports feminist implication that male sexuality is bad and while female sexuality is pure as the driven snow.

"So feminism is to blame for women NOT being considered as being capable of pedophilia/sexual abuse and feminism is to blame when women ARE considered as being capable of pedophilia/sexual abuse."

"I guess MRAs who don’t understand human nature are happy now. They don’t understand that sex is a female resource and any boy who gets sexual attention from a woman is lucky. It really makes me sick that society punishes women up to life for being nice to boys, and that some men don’t know any better than to support this charade.

In fact, treating women as sex offenders is the ne plus ultra insult to men and male sexuality and especially sexually frustrated boys and men. I take it personally and you can’t surpass this. This is the ultimate triumph of feminism.

In my opinion, the way to fight draconian sex laws is not to pretend boys can also be victims of women, but to educate the public about sex differences. We need to make it absolutely clear that sexuality belongs entirely to women, so it is impossible for a woman to commit a sex crime under any circumstances. And then let people decide how big the abuse industry needs to be, how draconian sentences should be for sex crimes, based on the honest recognition of the fact all of this is intended to curtail and punish male sexuality and demonize men."

The poster's name is Arpagus. He doesn't say that male sexuality is bad while female sexuality is pure as the driven snow, indeed, most MRA comments I have read don't say that, they say that male sexuality is good and female sexuality is bad and needs to be controlled.

So your definition of a circular argument is one in which you are asked to back up things that you say Christine.

DarkSideCat

If you dont know that all progressive Utopian moments share ideological, intellectual and political roots you should do a little more research. Same things, different packaging.

Nazism had international jewry and jews as its bogeyman, feminism has masculinity and patriarchy as its bogyman. Nazism says Aryans good, jews bad, feminism says women good, masculinity bad. Both movements use pseudo science and propaganda to advance their lies and empower themselves off the fears and prejudice of the gullible.

Pam, that article you posted pro equal rights for victims and equal punishment for perps, the whole point of it was demonstrating the fact that female child molesters are often portrayed as victims. Which is an anti feminist position.

A random and odd comment in the comment section does not represent the agenda of the movement, thats just the fallacy that this blog is is based on.

" A random and odd comment in the comment section does not represent the agenda of the movement, thats just the fallacy that this blog is is based on. "

Problem is they are not random or odd - they are systemic of the MRA blog-o-sphere.

It's a known tactic to compare certain groups with Fascism to defame and slander that group by association. Here's your Nazi rant with a few adjustments to the specific group:"Nazism had international jewry and jews as its bogeyman, MRA has women and feminism as its bogyman. Nazism says Aryans good, jews bad, MRAs says men good, feminism bad. Both movements use pseudo science and propaganda to advance their lies and empower themselves off the fears and prejudice of the gullible. "

Its a known tactic of the american political left to refer to people that they dont agree with as Nazis and fascists, it goes back to when hitler invaded russia.Your adjustment to what I said doesn't work at all. The mra isnt a top down progressive utopian movement that runs on fear and prejudice, its reactionary to a top down progressive utopian movement that runs on fear and prejudice.

Anyone who thinks the Nazis were pro-leftist is an ignorant fool. Communists, socialists, and trade unionists were the amoung first to be rounded up. Hitler rose to power by scapegoating communists (including blaming them for things the Nazis were doing themselves). The works of Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and every other known communist or socialist were banned. Possessing a copy of the Communist Manifesto could get you killed or sent to the camps. Pro-democratic or liberal literature was also banned. Nazism is explicitly right wing. It is also explicitly traditionalist. Even the most precursory look at Nazism reveals intense hatred of leftists. Anyone claiming that nazis are leftist is either severely misinformed or a blatant liar.

Also, 'progressive' and 'reactionary' are mutually exclusive. A reactionary movement is one that radicalizes in resistance to a fear of political or social change, whereas a progressive movement seeks political or social change. These are opposites.

"Eoghan, ok, you're correct on that "top down" thing. Pam and Tec and Cat and I all get daily marching orders from the ghosts of Andrea Dworkin and Hitler".

David, when you look at who funded and lead modern american feminism, a ruling class family and a CIA asset, it doesn't get much more top down than that, thats not conspiracy theory, thats from the horses mouths. Look at ivawa, an aggressive tool of ideological imperialism. Its top down.

Eughan, so you get mad at me for quoting Makow, but your explanation for the rise of feminism is really not that different than his.

You really think that the rise of second wave feminism was the result of CIA/elite funding? That it had nothing to do with, say, the rampant sexism of the times, workplace discrimination against women, the way that rape was trivialized by police and the culture at large, etc etc etc?

Sociable

ShareThis

About We Hunted the Mammoth

Ah, misogyny! I track down some of the most egregious and/or entertaining examples of man-boobery online (and sometimes off). I find a lot of it on Men's Rights and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) sites. Sometimes I mock. TRIGGER WARNING: I quote some pretty extreme misogyny here; also, the comments section is pretty much unfiltered.

I've been writing on topics ranging from gender and culture to money and
technology for more than twenty years, mostly as a freelancer.

Starting in the late 1990s, I covered tech and investing, at first for Newsday and the now-defunct Upside magazine, then as a staff writer at Money magazine. More recently, I blogged on money and business for Time.com.